[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10366] Same destructor order for octave_value:s in frame in std::vector for libstdc++ and libc++

[Markus Mützel]

Update of patch #10366 (project octave):

                  Status:          Ready For Test => In Progress            

    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comment #5:

There doesn't seem to be a guarantee in which order the elements of a
`std::vector` are destroyed. See also some citations to different parts of the
standard in this discussion: [1]

I don't know if there are any compatibility reasons why we should guarantee a
certain order. It just felt a bit "odd" if destructors are called in a
different order if Octave is linking against libstdc++ or against libc++. But
I don't have any strong feelings about it.
I agree that the explicit destructor should not be conditional on
HAVE_LLVM_LIBCXX. It should be used unconditionally in case we'd like to keep
this.

If we'd like to revert this change, could we please wait until changes to the
BISTs are in place that make them resilient against the order in which
elements are destroyed?

[1]:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6169125/order-of-destruction-of-elements-of-an-stdvector


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?10366>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/